Wage and Hour Law Update : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Minimum Wage, Overtime & Service Contracts

In recent weeks, we have discussed challenges to FLSA exempt status brought by employees many might assume to be properly exempt, such as a Director for the Red Cross. In another recent rejection of a claim of this type brought by the the aggressive plaintiffs’ bar, a federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled, following a bench trial, that the Supervisor of the Toxicology Laboratory for Wilkes-Barre Hospital properly was classified as an exempt "learned" professional.  Hockenbury v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141001 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2011).

Judge Edwin M. Kosik found that Plaintiff Hockenbury, who supervised fifteen technologists in the lab, possessed the requisite “educational degree and expertise in toxicology” to qualify as a learned professional under 29 C.F.R. § 541.301 (e)(1). The Court also concluded that Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis because he conceded that “he received in every single pay period the minimum of eighty hours pay, which was never reduced based on the number of hours he worked.”

Hockenbury represents another employer victory in a single FLSA plaintiff’s challenge to his or her exempt status. However, such scattered district court cases do little to alleviate the continued threat of FLSA litigation, and nothing to obviate the need for position-specific analysis of FLSA classification by all employers. In general, to qualify for the “learned” professional exemption, in addition to being paid on a salaried or fee basis, the employee must have a specific job-related advanced degree that is necessary for the performance of the job. State law also must be reviewed as some states, such as California, impose higher standards for exemption. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court's web site confirms that the nation's highest court has granted the petition for certiorari filed by the pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) plaintiffs in Christopher et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation.  The Court will now review the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Christopher that SmithKline properly classifies its pharmaceutical sales representatives as "outside sales" employees, despite the FDA regulations precluding PSRs from receiving money from the medical practitioners they visit.  Absent unforeseen delays, the parties (and the industry at large) should expect a ruling prior to end of the Court’s 2011/2012 term. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As often discussed in this space and elsewhere, Courts continue to widely differ in their analysis as to whether the administrative and/or outside sales exemptions are applicable to pharmaceutical sales representatives. Now, the Supreme Court will have another opportunity to weigh in on the applicability of the outside sales exemption to such employees, as the plaintiffs in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 635 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2011) have petitioned the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision finding them to be properly classified as outside salespersons. Christopher, et al. v. SmithKline, Supreme Court Docket No. 11-204.

While acceptance of the petition and a ruling from the high court would hopefully provide welcome clarity in this area, even a resolution by the Supreme Court of the circuit split between Christopher and the Second Circuit’s decision in In Re Novartis will not resolve all outstanding issues relating to the classification of these employees, as Courts continue to differ on the applicability of the administrative exemption.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As discussed in prior postings, a central issue in determining the application of the FLSA’s “7(i)” exemption is whether the payments to the employee constitute bona fide commissions.  In early July, Judge Gregory Frost of the Southern District of Ohio issued another ruling on this issue, finding that the compensation paid to managers and assistant managers at certain Mr. Tire Auto Service Centers constituted bona fide commissions for purposes of the exemption.  McAninch v. Monro Muffler Brake, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71827 (S.D. Ohio July 5, 2011). 

McAninch involved a compensation scheme under which a manager or assistant manager received a percentage of the controllable profit for the store if the store met budgetary targets.  When the store deviated in performance from the precise budgetary figure set for the store, the manager’s compensation was recalculated pursuant to a detailed formula which considered monthly fluctuations in store performance, labor costs and controllable expenses.  In addition, the Company provided managers with a weekly guaranteed draw, designed to ensure continuity in their compensation, which was reconciled when calculating commissions earned.  The court rejected arguments that: (i) the draw negated the Company’s assertion that the commission plan was “bona fide”; (ii) tying the commission rate to store profits as opposed to store sales rendered the payments non-bona fide commissions; and (iii) the managers’ frequent failure to exceed the guaranteed draw affected the analysis.  Since the question of whether the payments based on the percentage of controllable profit consisted “bona fide commissions” was the sole prong of the 7(i) exemption (requiring also payment of time and one-half the minimum wage for all hours worked and employment at a “retail or service” establishment) raised by plaintiffs, summary judgment for defendants was appropriate. 

Use of commission and other forms of incentive compensation continues to be widespread among employers across all industries.  Employers contemplating implementation of a 7(i) compliant commission plan should consult with counsel and closely scrutinize applicable federal and state law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we have previously discussed, the FLSA contains an exemption for commissioned employees in the retail or service industry who meet certain parameters: colloquially referred to as the “7(i)” exemption. California has a similar exemption which the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District recently applied to a sales consultant, holding that Defendant’s payments qualified as “commissions.” Areso v. Carmax, Inc., 195 Cal. App. 4th 996 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011). 

Plaintiff Areso was engaged in selling defendant’s “used vehicles, warranty plans, used vehicle appraisals and vehicle accessories,” and received payments based on the products and services she sold. At issue were two different versions of Carmax’s sales consultant pay plan for California employees.  Under both, plaintiff was eligible to receive a fixed amount per sale of a car, and then a percentage of the purchase price of accessories sold. The trial court ruled both of these “per vehicle” pay plans were “a performance-based incentive system and thus, fairly understood to be a commission structure under Labor Code § 204.1.” Id. at 1000.

Areso appealed. The Court of Appeal began its analysis by noting that Wage Order 7-2001 exempts from California Labor Code overtime requirements “any employee whose earnings exceed one and one-half times the minimum wage if more than half of that employee’s compensation represents commissions.” Id. at 1002-3. This exemption mirrors 7(i), but without the requirement that the employee be in a “retail or service” industry. The court observed that the Cal. Labor Code also contains a definition of commission wages, namely “compensation paid to any person for services rendered in the sale of such employer’s property or services and based proportionately upon the amount or value thereof.” Id. citing Labor Code § 204.1 (emphasis in original). 

The Court then analyzed previous California appellate authority addressing other types of incentive compensation, such as a percentage of the hourly rate charged to a customer, and “point” systems based on the items sold, but not tied to the price of those items. The Court observed that “none of the[se] cases interpreting § 204.1 has involved the compensation system which, like Carmax’s, compensate sales people with a uniform payment for each item or service sold and as a result, no cases construed the word ‘amount’ in the statute. This is an issue of first impression, and new facts require new law.” Id. at 1007. Rejecting plaintiff’s contention that in order to be “proportionate”, the percentage of the items sold payable to the commission employee must fluctuate, the Court observed that “paying sales people a uniform fee for each vehicle is proportionate—a one-to-one proportion. The compensation will rise and fall in direct proportion to the number of vehicles sold.” Id. at 1008. 

The Carmax decision represents a welcome victory for California employers seeking to apply this overtime exemption. Observes Jackson Lewis Partner JoAnna Brooks, who regularly handles wage and hour litigation in California, “The decision is surprising because it rejects the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s traditional guidance that a commission must be a percentage of the actual sales price. Other forms of fixed incentives are typically deemed bonuses or piece rates. Thus, it may be lawful to pay a fixed commission, but calculating a fixed payment based on anticipated “profit” after deducting expenses, such as overhead costs, may still be deemed a bonus. The consequences are significant, because it can result in mis-classification of an inside sales worker.”

Despite this decision, California wage and hour laws remain full of pitfalls for employers. Employers should proceed with caution. As Brooks notes, “Even employers who meet California’s commission exemption must take additional steps to ensure they have a properly drafted commission plan explaining when commissions are earned, the applicable rates paid, calculation of overtime and the impact of separation from employment.” 

California employers must continue to stay in the vanguard of wage and hour compliance to avoid costly litigation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As discussed in detail on Jackson Lewis’ California Workplace Blog, the Ninth Circuit has resuscitated the California Labor Code’s “learned professional” exemption, reversing a decision from the Eastern District of California which held that unlicensed accountants could not qualify as a matter of law.  Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12062 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2011).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We previously discussed New York courts applying the FLSA’s executive exemption, which exempts employees whose primary duty is management (and who are paid on a salary basis) from minimum wage and overtime pay obligations. Recently, Judge Berman of the Southern District upheld the application of the exemption to a group of warehouse “Captains.” Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66631 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2011)(Berman, J).

Ramos concerned warehouse captains who oversee a team of 3-6 “pickers,” the employees responsible for compiling orders of merchandise within defendant’s warehouse and loading that merchandise onto trucks for delivery to defendant’s customers. Relying heavily on the testimony of plaintiff Jose Barranco, whom the parties stipulated would serve as the representative deponent for all eight Captain plaintiffs, the court observed that this testimonial evidence (along with other affidavits submitted by defendant from other Captains) established that each Captain was “in charge” of his pickers because captains:

·         Ensured that pickers arrive to work on time;

·         Ensured that pickers performed their job duties correctly and at an acceptable productivity level;

·         Counseled pickers who worked too slowly or made too many mistakes;

·         Gave particular assignments to specific pickers based on his or her belief that that individual picker could carry out the assigned task (i.e., obtain the correct product for the order);

·         Participated in the performance evaluations for those on their team and served as the primary source of information for the night warehouse manager (the Captains’ own supervisor) concerning pickers’ performance;

·         Could request transfer of pickers away from his or her team;

·         Had the authority to issue a warning to a picker; and,

·         Completed a picker production report for every picker on his team each night, and conducted a final sign-out and inspection of the pickers equipment. 

Calling these tasks “clearly managerial,” the court ruled, in line with DOL regulations, that these managerial tasks constituted the pickers primary duty and that each captain’s team constituted a recognized “department or subdivision” over which that captain had managerial control. Finally, the court found that while the credible evidence established that a Captain could hire or fire pickers, such finding was not determinative as “courts uniformly reject arguments that an employee cannot be an exempt executive if he cannot make hiring or firing decisions.” Id. citing Pollard v. GPM Invs., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24199 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2011) (collecting cases).

This decision highlights the fact- intensive inquiry necessary to determine if an individual is an exempt executive, especially if the individual is a “front line” supervisor responsible for hands-on review of the work performed by non-exempt employees. Employers must continually analyze the appropriateness of their classification of managers as exempt executives under both federal and state law. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite the Circuit split created by this month’s decision from the Ninth Circuit, holding that pharmaceutical sales representatives are outside sales employees within the meaning of the FLSA, the Supreme Court has declined to take up Novartis’ appeal of the adverse ruling it received on this issue from the Second Circuit.  The Supreme Court’s ruling was contained in its Order List for February 28, and does not provide any insight into the Court’s thinking. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As discussed here and here, the FLSA provides an exemption for employees who 1) are employed by a “retail or service establishment”; 2) earn at least 1.5 the minimum wage for all hours worked; and, 3) earn more than 50% of their compensation in a representative period from commissions. In July 2009, a federal district court in Pennsylvania applied this “7(i)” exemption and found that commission-compensated sales associates of NutriSystem’s weight loss and weight management products were not entitled to overtime under the FLSA. Parker v. NutriSystem, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66597 (E.D. Pa., July 30, 2009). This week, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld this decision. Parker v. NutriSystem, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18691 (3d Cir. Sept. 7, 2010).

On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s ruling that NutriSystem’s compensation plan established a "bona fide commission rate" and was therefore a "commission" within the meaning of the FLSA and the 7(i) exemption. In upholding the payments in question as commissions, the Third Circuit first noted the paucity of appellate case law defining a commission for purposes of the FLSA. Relying on Judge Posner’s opinion in Yi v. Sterling Collision Centers, 480 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2007), the Third Circuit concluded that the NutriSystem compensation plan, wherein “a flat rate fee is not paid unless a sales associate completes a sale . . . [and the fee is] is tied to both the time the sale is made and whether it is based on an incoming or outgoing call”, constituted the payment of bona fide commissions, even though the commission was not calculated as a flat percentage of customer costs. The Court observed that this method of compensation both incentivized the sales associates to make more sales calls, and, importantly, "decoupled [compensation] from actual time worked."

Employers utilizing piece rates, job rates, sales commissions or other forms of incentive pay should be aware of the potential applicability of this exemption. Of course, applicable state law also must be reviewed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, a federal judge in Minnesota analyzed whether the confounding administrative exemption applies to investigators employed by a “full-service investigative firm specializing in insurance defense investigations.” Ahle v. Veracity Research Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88250 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2010). In an opinion which addressed numerous other issues in the litigation, including rejecting the applicability of two other FLSA exemptions to the investigators (outside sales and motor carrier), Judge Ann Montgomery concluded that, while the investigators did perform work relating to the general business operations of Veracity and its customers (meeting the first prong of the administrative exemption test), they did not exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment in performing that work, and thus could not qualify for the exemption.

Relying on the Seventh Circuit’s analysis in Roe-Midgett v. CC Services, Inc., 512 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2008), Judge Montgomery observed that even though the plaintiff investigators “produced” Veracity’s product (the investigations themselves), potentially making them “production” workers as opposed to administrative workers, the administrative/production dichotomy was of little use in analyzing a service business such as defendant’s, and, more importantly:

the core business function of Veracity's clients is not to produce investigations. For example, Veracity's insurance company clients are in the business of writing and selling insurance policies. The duty of conducting claims investigations is merely ancillary to producing and selling insurance policies, and thus falls on the administrative side of the "administrative-production dichotomy”

Ahle, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88250 at * 11 citing Roe-Midgett, 512 F.3d at 872.

Judge Montgomery then turned to the final prong of the analysis: whether the investigators exercised discretion and independent judgment under the Department of Labor regulation 29 C.F.R. § 541.202. Analyzing Veracity’s investigators in light of previous FLSA decisions concerning insurance industry investigations, the Court ruled that no material issue of fact existed as to the presence of discretion and independent judgment because, “(1) Veracity's written guidelines explain in great detail how claims investigators should conduct an investigation, (2) the claims investigators are required to obtain all the facts regardless of their impact, and (3) the claims investigators do not include their own opinions, conclusions, or recommendations regarding the decision whether to pay or deny the claim.” This absence of independent analysis rendered the investigators employees who simply made “choices among established techniques, procedures or specific standards described in manuals or other sources." Thus, they could not qualify for the administrative exemption. 

The administrative exemption is a persistent source of confusion, and litigation. Employers must apply its multiple-pronged exemption test with care and ensure exercise of sufficient discretion and independent judgment as to matters of significance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The subject of many FLSA actions is store managers and whether they are properly classified as exempt employees. In a recent victory for the employer community, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York held as a matter of law that Express Mart properly classified its store manager in Cato, New York as exempt. Guinup v. Petr-All Petroleum Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86280 (N.D.N.Y Aug. 23, 2010).

Plaintiff Guinup was the store manager for Store 360, a combination convenience store and gas station. In her claim for overtime, she did not dispute that three of the four requirements for the executive exemption were met: namely, that she; 1) was paid on a salary basis and earned at least $455 per week; 2) customarily and regularly directed the work of two or more employees; and 3) had the authority to hire or fire employee or in the alternative make recommendations as to hiring and firing which received particular weight. Id. at * 17-18. Rather, Plaintiff argued that as a store manager she did not meet the requirement that her “primary duty [be] management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof.” Id. citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.100. 

The Court then reviewed the four factors utilized to determine whether an employee’s primary duty is management: “[1] the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; [2] the amount of time spent performing exempt work; [3] the employee's relative freedom from direct supervision; and [4] the relationship between the employee's salary and the wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee.” Id. In holding that each factor militated in favor of exempt status  the Court observed that Plaintiff’s duties included:

interviewing and hiring new employees, scheduling, training, writing performance evaluations, reporting employee and customer injuries to corporate, discussing sales performance and promotions with corporate, conducting surveys of competitors' gas prices and convenience store business, and controlling "shrink." Plaintiff was also responsible for making recommendations to corporate regarding product ordering and pricing, new hire pay rates, employee discipline and termination, and certain Store 360 security measures. Furthermore, Plaintiff accepted phone calls at home from her subordinates at Store 360 regarding incidents that arose at Store 360 when she was not working.

Id. at * 21. 

Based on these duties, the Court observed that “Store 360 could not have operated successfully unless Plaintiff performed her managerial functions.” As the most senior on-site employee, the Court found she was relatively free from supervision on a day-to-day basis even if she had an “active” Area Supervisor because, inter alia, the Area Supervisor was responsible for ten stores. Finally, based on the Court’s estimate of the compensation of Plaintiff’s assistant manager, Plaintiff was paid approximately 31.7% more than that employee, her highest-ranking subordinate.

While the Guinup decision is favorable to employers, the applicability of the executive exemption continues to be a fact-sensitive, highly technical analysis with divergent court opinions. Whenever a managerial employee is not the highest ranking on-site employee (as Guinup was), particular care must be taken in assessing applicability of the exemption.  And even if the employee is the highest rank on-site there must be significant exercise of managerial duties. All retail employers must focus on this issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 31, Magistrate Judge John Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a lengthy opinion in several consolidated FLSA actions brought by a group of securities brokers who alleged they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA.  In re Rbc Dain Rauscher Overtime Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32413 (D. Minn. March 31, 2010).  The opinion addresses several issues relevant to financial services industry employers including:

• The applicability of the “learned professional exemption – the Court denied summary judgment to the Defendant on this issue as to one broker because based on the record the Court could not determine that the knowledge utilized by the broker (who possessed a Series 7 license and an MBA) to perform his job was customarily acquired via academic instruction.  Id. at * 30-36;

• Whether a “non-forgivable” but recoverable draw satisfies the salary basis payment requirement - the Court held that a non-forgivable but recoverable draw that never fell below the minimum salary required for exemption ($455 per week under federal law) satisfied the salary basis, even though the draw was reconciled in calculating commissions.  Id. at * 37-43.  In reaching this finding the Court cited a United States Department of Labor opinion letter issued by then-Wage and Hour Administrator and current Jackson Lewis partner and head of the Jackson Lewis Wage and Hour Practice Group, Paul DeCamp; and

• Impact of the “Highly Compensated” exemption test – the Court held that brokers who met the “highly compensated” threshold set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 (i.e., payment of the salary basis minimum and total compensation of at least $100,000/year) were exempt, as they customarily and regularly performed exempt administrative duties by providing financial advice and analysis.  Id. at * 86-105.

In re RBC serves as a valuable primer for financial services firms seeking to identify and review the exemption issues that often arise in the financial services industry.  Unfortunately, the industry is under attack despite the high levels of compensation received by many industry employees. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are many reasons an employer may decide to reclassify an employee from exempt to non-exempt: changes in the law; modified court or DOL interpretations of existing law; as a result of an internal audit; or, simply based on changes in the business needs of the company. Does that decision to reclassify create evidence that the employee was “misclassified” as exempt, and that the misclassification was willful? No, said the court in Clarke v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 08-CV-2400 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2010), holding that reclassification does not establish that the employee was misclassified, or that any violation was willful.

In Clarke, the employer decided to reclassify various technical computer workers based on the increasing number of FLSA suits. Because one of the plaintiffs who had been reclassified waited over two years after the reclassification to file suit, the FLSA claim was time barred unless he could establish the employer “willfully” violated the law, extending the FLSA statute of limitations to three years.

In support of his claim that he was misclassified and that the misclassification was willful (thus saving the claim), plaintiff argued the decision to reclassify itself demonstrated knowledge that the prior classification was wrong. The court rejected this, and held the decision to reclassify did not establish a willful violation, but just the opposite: a good faith effort by the Company to ensure that the company’s classification complied with the FLSA. The reclassification was likely a conservative measure adopted at a time when FLSA collective action overtime lawsuits were becoming more and more common, the court held.  Indeed, the court held “if the mere fact of a reclassification were enough to trigger the exceptional three year limitations period, it [the three year limitations period] would cease to become an exception.” 

Additionally, as to a second plaintiff whose claims were not time-barred, the court held the reclassification did not establish that the employee was misclassified. “The mere fact that an employee was reclassified cannot establish an employer’s liability for the period prior to the reclassification,” the court held, reemphasizing that, under the FLSA, it is the duties that control. In fact, despite the reclassification, the court granted summary judgment to the employer finding the employee was exempt under the computer professional exemption—one of only a handful of cases addressing that exemption. 

While plaintiffs’ counsel will certainly continue to argue that any decision to reclassify is evidence that the employee was previously misclassified, the reclassification decision alone will not, according to the Clarke court, provide evidence of a willful violation or establish that the employee was in fact misclassified in the first place. This decision provides some comfort to employers who decide to reclassify employees, and will permit employers to reclassify employees in cases where the exempt status is unclear with less fear that the decision to reclassify will be used against the company in a lawsuit challenging the original classification decision.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link